India vs Australia, 2nd ODI: 3 observations from Men in Blue's win as hosts level series
India hosted Australia in Rajkot for the 2nd ODI, with a view of making a comeback in the three-match ODI series after the hosts lost in Mumbai. Australia won the toss and decided to bowl first, which was expected really because of the dew factor.
India started really well, with Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan scoring freely and putting together an 81-run partnership before Rohit was dismissed for 42 from 44 balls. After that, Virat Kohli and Dhawan stitched together a 103-run partnership but the latter got out for 96 runs from 90 balls.
Kohli and KL Rahul then provided the acceleration India needed in the middle overs, before Rahul and Ravindra Jadeja powered the hosts to 340 for the loss of 6 wickets. Chasing 341 on a good batting wicket, Australia didn't start the way they would have wanted as the visitors found themselves two down for 82. Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne gave the away side some hope but Australia kept losing wickets at crucial stages and were bowled out for 304 runs, meaning the hosts won the game by 36 runs.
Here, we are going to take a look at the three talking points from the game.
#3 India got their batting order right
Prior to this game, all eyes were on Virat Kohli who came down at number four in the first ODI in an experiment that didn't work. So, when Rohit Sharma was dismissed, it was great to see India coming back to their senses and sending their best batsman in a position he loves.
The impact was there to be seen as Kohli looked in ominous touch, scoring 78 runs from 76 balls and he looked all set to reach another hundred, if not for a brilliant catch by Mitchell Starc. Not only that, KL Rahul came out at number 5 to everyone's surprise and he proved his credentials as a wicket-keeper batsman.
Replacing Rishabh Pant, the Karnataka batsman played the most important innings on the day. He smashed 80 from just 52 balls which enabled India to post an above-par total on the board. All in all, the Indian team management learned from their mistakes in the first ODI and made amends.
#2 The hosts' bowling display improved massively from the first ODI
Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Shami didn't look like themselves in the first ODI as their line and length was all over the place but in the second ODI, both of them were on point; not giving the Australian batsmen any width to work with and keeping it stump to stump, especially Bumrah.
Shami picked up the all-important wicket of David Warner and when Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne threatened to take the game away from India, Kuldeep Yadav produced a magical over, dismissing both set batsmen and leaving the visitors in a spot of bother.
Then Shami, Navdeep Saini, and Bumrah did the cleanup job and dismissed Australia's lower middle order quite cheaply. Shami picked up 3 wickets, while Saini, Jadeja, and Yadav got two apiece. Bumrah was the most economical on the day and picked up only 1 wicket. All in all, it was a clinical bowling display from the hosts, something that they didn't do in the first ODI.
#1 Australia were always two steps behind India
Australia were never the team dictating terms in the second ODI as India were always two steps ahead. The hosts were quite clever as they never let Australia's best bowlers Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins settle, which can be seen in the stats of the day.
Starc ended up giving away 78 runs from 10 overs, picking up zero wickets in the process, while Cummins was quite economical. He gave away 53 runs but didn't pick up any wickets. In the end, it was the visitors' inability to break partnerships and pick up wickets regularly that cost them.
During their batting innings, Australia needed a good start which they didn't get, that meant the visitors were always chasing the game. Then when Smith (98 runs from 102 balls) and Labuschagne (46 runs from 47 balls) got dismissed, Australia needed some stability which the middle order failed to do. While the first ODI saw the away side put in a clinical performance, the opposite was true in the second.